Uttar Pradesh Population Policy 2021-30: A Feminist Exploration

Reproductive Autonomy And The Right To Procreation

Reproductive autonomy entails the control of a woman over her own reproductive choices. It needs to be understood that the exercise of reproductive choices encapsulates the willingness to procreate as well as refrain from procreating [Sucheta Srivastva v. Chandigarh Administration]. As a matter of law, the foundational basis for such a recognition is to respect the right to privacy, bodily integrity, and dignity of a woman. This implies that the exercise of reproductive choices are completely exclusive of any unwarranted interference and thus a woman cannot be compelled to indulge in any sexual activity, whatsoever, upon her refusal. The recognition of reproductive choices as a constitutional entitlement can be traced to the case of KS Puttaswamy v. UoI, wherein the Apex Court recognized that the capacity to make reproductive choices forms an inextricable part of “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution and thus read the right to “refrain from procreating” into the right to bodily autonomy and privacy. The patriarchal social set-up, however, runs parallel with this constitutional framework as there are a myriad of extraneous factors which outrightly discount the reproductive autonomy of women in India.

Population control policies, coupled with pervasive birth control methods such as abortion and sterilization, attain a sheer eugenic significance and thus operate as a regressive instrument against these cardinal virtues of dignity and bodily autonomy. Since abortions in India are state-regulated, women, in general, do not have a right to abortion. The regulating statute, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, (hereinafter “MTPA”) is largely centered around the discretion of medical professionals and allows for lawful termination of pregnancies only under certain specified circumstances. In the backdrop of MTPA, the Population Policy merits close examination to understand how it reeks of legislative biases against women and leads to discounting of their reproductive autonomy.

Section 3 of MTPA prescribes that only qualified medical practitioners are allowed to terminate pregnancy and only in those circumstances wherein the continuation of pregnancy would pose a grave threat to the life of the pregnant woman or become detrimental for her physical and mental well-being; or if the birth of child takes place, it would seriously suffer from mental or physical abnormalities (Ghosh, 2017). By not recognizing the method for wilful abortion, the MTPA essentially compels females to feign “serious detriment to physical and mental well-being”, thus indirectly taking away their reproductive and decisional autonomy. The nexus of the MTPA and population control policies tend to snatch away this autonomy in even more egregious way as the disincentives attached with population control measures would effectively force women to opt for sex-selective and illegal abortions owing to the legislative barriers engraved in MTPA.

UP Population Policy & Incentivisation Of Illegal Abortions

The lack of use of modern contraceptives due to multiple socio-cultural factors or sheer economic constraints (Faujdar et al 2014), contribute largely to unwanted pregnancies in India. The population policy, thus, has a likely consequence that the women, in order to save themselves and their families from the brunt of the policy, would be forced to undergo termination of pregnancy. That said, once this policy comes into effect, women would either have to feign “serious detriment to physical or mental well-being” to legally terminate the pregnancy or have to resort to illegal means, wherein, the abortions are carried out with the help of untrained medical practitioners involving a possible prejudice to their life. Many times such unlawful medical interventions lead to a situation where the females are left infertile thereby severely undermining their right to procreation under article 21 (Mishra 2001).

In India, it is not that the illegal abortions are not performed but the pace with which they are currently taking place would certainly sore to new height on account of this policy. The reason behind this tendency in Indian society can be attributed to the strong male-child preference. Since such preference has been the subject matter of religious morality in society (Visaria, 2015), the repercussions of state-regulated family planning on women go beyond its conceived objectives. It would certainly lead to frequent subjection of females’ bodies to non-consensual medical intervention. A steep rise, thus, can be expected in sex-selective abortions in order to conform to the policy. In the states where the adherence to the two-child norm is made mandatory for contesting panchayat elections, similar practices like resorting to sex selection tests and abortions of the female foetus have been recorded previously (Buch 2005). Resorting to such practices even when the stakes were minimal in the form of contesting panchayat elections gives a fair projection of the mass-level pregnancy termination once this policy comes into effect, as it has plethora of disincentives associated therewith. The implementation of such a policy measure, therefore, would make pregnancy termination the norm, and motherhood the exception.

Sex-selective abortions have the ability to not only affect the reproductive autonomy of the females but also subvert the already skewed child sex ratio in India and, particularly in UP, where it is far below the national average of 919 females for 1000 males (Kamdar, 2021). A research study also projected that, in the 2017-2030 period, UP would witness the highest downfall in the number of female child births (Chao, 2020). With the formulation of such a coercive framework, the malady of sex-selective abortions will get exacerbated and will outrightly lead to increase in the instances of female infanticides, as witnessed in China, which observed a sudden spike in female feticide after the promulgation of its single-child policy (Aravamudan, 2019).

Thus, it seems that the policy has been devised with utter ignorance to the current social demography of the state, and especially to the gender realities prevailing therein. Coercive policy interventions pertaining to childbearing and family planning have the ability to impact the livelihood of women of all social groups in multifaceted ways. In this particular instance, by placing high stakes in the form of disincentivization, the state has (in)advertently ventured into the further subversion of gender bridges that exist between men and women.

State-Sponsored Sterilization Vis-A-Vis ‘Free Consent’

The draft bill prescribes that those families who are Below Poverty Line (BPL) in the poverty index, will be eligible for a monetary incentive of Rs. 1 lakh subject to the condition that either of the spouses will get sterilized subsequent to the birth of one female child, a daughter, whereas if the sterilization takes place after the birth of a male child, a son, the incentive would be Rs. 80,000 (Gaur, 2021). While the monetary incentive will operate as a lucrative scheme for the weaker socio-economic sections of the society, and thus appreciable, the extremely high threshold of disincentives, nonetheless, will unequivocally work as a penal prospect for the families who look upon their children more as a future breadwinner and caregiver.

Highlighting the coercive overtones in such policies, Nobel laureate Economist Amartya Sen compared this indirect method of birth control with the overtly coercive policies adopted in contemporary China in the form of ‘One Child policy’ and forceful attempts of Indira Gandhi government during National Emergency in mid-70s in India (Sen, 1997). He argues that at times the avenue embarked is even indirect in nature, for instance through policies that disentitle families having more than the prescribed number of children from accruing welfare schemes of the state, such as public employment or other developmental schemes. The current policy, thus, undoubtedly adopts this indirect pathway of birth control which Sen argues. Considering the demography of the state, this becomes even more fatal especially where the utmost emphasis is laid upon conceiving welfare schemes of the government.

By incentivizing sterilization in an extremely patriarchal social setup, the state has asserted an additional burden upon women where they do not only bear the burden of sterilization alone but are also expected to give birth to only male children every time they procreate. The National Family Planning Survey-4 in 2015-16, to this effect, testifies that while 17.3 percent of women in UP, in pursuance of family planning, have undergone voluntary sterilization, whereas a mere 0.1 percent of males have done that (NFHS-4, 2015-16). This reflects the self-compromising psyche of females, prompted by the lack of access to contraceptive measures, sensitization, and education, which places them in a even more precarious position where despite being aware of the irreversible character of the female sterilization & complications related therein, they sacrifice their ability to procreate. Thus, sterilization on state sponsorship further infringes bodily integrity of women as the consent given for the medical intervention is founded, not upon their free will, but on the associated incentives as well as disincentives.

Though the intended objectives of the population policy cannot be termed as illegitimate or unwarranted per se, the means adopted by the state government seem so. In fact, there could have been a cooperation-based approach which would have given, unlike coercive methods, autonomy to choose and make informed decisions. Personal autonomy & dignity, thus, cannot be compromised at the cost of obtaining governmental benefits especially when it is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure welfare benefits to its citizenry. This becomes equally important when it is an accepted notion that the policy decisions should be informed of scientific temperament. Education and sensitization, thus, would be a more effective and viable medium to transcend the intended objectives of birth control as they would tend to imbibe a sense of empowerment and dignity within the female psyche.

Even when the country is witnessing the shrinking of fertility rate at a rapid pace, it did not deter the state government from coming up with such a policy insinuating extra-scientific considerations. Such authoritative measures in the form of disincentivization severely affect women and impede their right to reproductive autonomy. It is also likely that such measures would not only lead to the creation of a social configuration where only male child will be given preference but also cause an increase in the instances of illegal abortion and thereby skewing the existing parameters such as child sex-ratio.

Views are personal.

References

Aravamudan, Gita (2019): “India's History with Female Infanticide and China's One-child Policy Share a Tragic Truth,” The News Minute, 11 December, viewed on 08 August 2021, (https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/indias-history-female-infanticide-and-chinas-one-child-policy-share-tragic-truth-113872).

Buch, Nirmala (2005): “Law of Two-Child Norm in Panchayats: Implications, Consequences and Experiences,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 40 No 24, pp 2421-2429.

Chao, Fengquig, Christophe Z. Guilmoto, Samir K. C., Hernando Ombao (2020): “Probabilistic Projection of the Sex Ratio at Birth and Missing Female Births by State and Union Territory in India, ” PLoS One Vol 15 No 8, pp

Faujdar, R, Chander Shekhar, Biswabandita Chowdhary (2014): “Use of Traditional Contraceptive Methods in India & its Socio-demographic Determinants,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, Vol 140 Suppl, Suppl 1, pp 17-28.

Gaur, Vatsala (2021): “UP Population Bill Draft: Incentives for Couples with Less than 3 Kids,” The Economic Times, 10 July, viewed on 07 August 2021, (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/up-population-bill-draft-incentives-for-couples-with-less-than-3-kids/articleshow/84277568.cms?from=mdr).

Ghosh, Arijeet, Nikita Khaitan (2017): “A Womb of One’s Own: Privacy and Reproductive Rights,” Economic and Political Weekly Engage, 28 Oct, Vol 52 No 42-43.

Kamdar, Bansari (2021): “The Gendered Impact of Uttar Pradesh’s Population Control Bill,” The Diplomat, 30 July, viewed on 06 August 2021, (https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/the-gendered-impact-of-uttar-pradeshs-population-control-bill/).

NFHS-4 (2015-16): IIPS, Report of National Family Health Survey 2015-16 (NFHS-4) Uttar Pradesh, Mumbai.

Mishra, Yamini (2001): “Unsafe Abortions and Women's Health,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 36 No 40, 2001, pp 3814-3817.

Sen, Amrtya (1997): “Population Policy: Authoritarianism Versus Cooperation”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol.10 No.1, pp 3-22.

Visaria, Ajay (2015): “Religion and Son Preference in India and Bangladesh: Three Essays on Comparing Hindus and Muslims on Son Preference and Sex Differentials in Child Health,” Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations.